Deacon wrote:Well, I find the Tsar's threats to start executing Ingrian nobles in an effort to find the prince more than a bit beyond the pale. That isn't how Christian nations should act. It's barbaric.

But they are C18 Russians, they are surposed to be barbaric!

This may have been era in which various jurists in Western Europe were writingthe first modern laws of war and talking about the rights of non combatants. But I do not think such publications were being much translated into Russian, Turkish or Persian.

Marlborough seems to have picked up a lot of bad press in the West for burning the Electors Estates in Bavaria. In Russia Peter the Great seems to have personally tortured rebels to death and was basically viewed as a proper "hands on" Czar and a worthy heir to Viking Slave Raiders, Mongol tax collectors and the odd Orthodox Saint.

But Peter who had cut his trip short to return at the insurrection was sick of the streltsy. He wanted the end to be harsh so the rest of Russia would take this as an example; don’t try to rebel against him again.Fifteen rebel leaders were broken on the wheel and then beheaded. Then 300 streltsy were divided between the nobles, people at court serving him and official assistants of these assistants. The prisoners were buried up to their waist and the courtiers told to behead them. This served a double purpose as the couriers could see what came of plotting against him.The Tzar looked on from his horseback saying the blood of rebels was pleasing to the Lord

I get that the Russians are at the edge of civilization and spent most of the next 200 years trying to become part of polite society. This is even generally in keeping with Russian behavior. But I am part of the more polite western society where randomly killing nobles isn't really ok. It's the sort of thing I'd expect from the Ottomans or the like

count-de-monet wrote:posted by Deacon in Dec '17 with regard to the Ingrians beheading Tsar Peter without trial

"If I were the Ingarian Prince, I think I might well have done the same".

I am only trying to role play the "mad fury" of the Romanovs.

Does Spain want to confess now to employing Jann Feirich ?

Very important getting the "mad fury" right when half of Russia think the Crown Prince (now Czar) did not work very hard at getting his dead old dad back and was secretly pleased to see him get the chop.

As a matter of intereat did the Russians offer a ransom and a treaty to Ingaria underwritten by such worthy types as the King of Spain, King of Sweden, Ottoman Sultan, HRE? As the Russian Court would have done if getting Czar Peter back alive was actually important to them?

Also wonder when the first "False Peter" shows up in the Ukraine to free the serfs, restore old style Russian Religion and punish the wicked coutiers who betrayed him?

I miss being the Grand Vizier have having to play the nice and honourable King of Spain & nice & honourable HEIC instead. Wonder if the Grand Vizier to the Persian King of Kings? Or a Vandal King will be PC positions in the new Roman Game?

I think the differences in how we all would approach the same situation is part of what makes the game work so well.

I played the Jacobites in game 7 for a short while before I needed to drop. I had a very different vision of a jacobite england than the player who picked it up and went full autocrat. It just didn't occur to me to burn down parliament and kick all the people who stood by while my father the king was murdered in cold blood.

But it's a great story to do that, and it has certainly made Game 7 a very wild ride.

Once the Ingrians had gotten their hands on my father the Tsar, I would have done a thousand different things to get him back and win the day.

But it's a great story to just go on a mad tear to tell them all to f' off, and try to burn the country to the ground when the obvious result of that approach happens.

As a character, I find it all a bit, to a lot, scandalous. As a player, I think it's a bit of a hoot and am looking forward to seeing the next chapter in "the Mad Tsar"

I think the differences in how we all would approach the same situation is part of what makes the game work so well.

I played the Jacobites in game 7 for a short while before I needed to drop. I had a very different vision of a jacobite england than the player who picked it up and went full autocrat. It just didn't occur to me to burn down parliament and kick all the people who stood by while my father the king was murdered in cold blood.

But it's a great story to do that, and it has certainly made Game 7 a very wild ride.

Once the Ingrians had gotten their hands on my father the Tsar, I would have done a thousand different things to get him back and win the day.

But it's a great story to just go on a mad tear to tell them all to f' off, and try to burn the country to the ground when the obvious result of that approach happens.

As a character, I find it all a bit, to a lot, scandalous. As a player, I think it's a bit of a hoot and am looking forward to seeing the next chapter in "the Mad Tsar"

Scabble is very different since getting your diplomats etc shot and locked up is fairly standard. But in Glori I have never had my own character taken captive (Assassinated.....yes). But I think what is important is to play in character.

In this respect I think the roll playing of Romanov happy families is great! Though if you want to be a bit picky based on what happened when Armies he was with got routed and destroyed by the Swedes and later surrounded by the Ottomans Peter did seem to have a highly developed sence of his own importance and need to survive at all costs.

Not sure how Rumelia would have played a captive player character..........probably tried to take hostages and exchange, but the odd Kruppa may have spat in your eye and gone to the block with a suitabke threats about Albanian blood feuds and that 100,000 Rumelian Horsemen will know the reason why.

In contrast I like to think Charles Hapsburgs beloved Queen and his loyal ministers would take view that getting him back to be the No1 priority. Even if it did cost Scotland or the Duchy of Flanders or instance. Take view that the House of Austria is based on personal loyalty rather than mere geography (provinces just come and go). Indeed while Spain and Austria could have fought on in recent war following capture of a Austrian Army and the Viceroy of Mexico by the French decision was to accept terms and get these loyal men back.

As much as I like to stir the pot, it is hard to imagine that the Russians think they're invading when they only brought one infantry battalion and 6 squadrons of dragoons. I'd guess some variant of very, very lost.

Not if they have a line of supply bases, of course they need an agreement with all the tribal territories they have been marching through or they could be cut off very easily. We would have heard something before if they had to fight anyone or a supply column had been raided.

Deacon wrote:As much as I like to stir the pot, it is hard to imagine that the Russians think they're invading when they only brought one infantry battalion and 6 squadrons of dragoons. I'd guess some variant of very, very lost.

Normally its only Russian Fleets which get lost like that.

But its not unknown for Russian Armies to get badly lost as well. In G7 we had the Army which thought it was going to North America and ended up in Scotland instead.......strange version of English, Pine Trees, I am surprised they noticed the difference.

We also had the mystery in G2 of why a 45,000 strong Russian Army which had been visiting central Europe suddenly decided to sail down the Danube landed in Anatolia and started to march home.

I say "started" since only one man and his mule made it home with a strongly Ottoman diplomatic protest.

The odd thing was that the screams of Protest from the Ottomans were only matched by the silence from Russia. Which tends to imply that someone started a invasion and dropped out the next turn or the Russian General Staff wrote somthing like Rostov rather than Rostock.